![[Marshall Democrat-News]](http://www.marshallnews.com/images/nameplate-small.png){kind=small}
Marshall, Missouri ~ Saturday, July 19, 2008
| Blogs | 
|
|
People Killing People
Posted Tuesday, April 22, 2008, at 1:56 PM<< Previous | Read comments | Respond | Email link | Next >>
The other day I responded to a question on a blog about the arrest or entrapment of a sexual predator and somehow the constitutional right of owning a gun came back. A slight remark starting me to thinking about the value of the comment. I am a gun owner and I have lived in a household that owned guns every day of my life. When I was a child my father hunted to help feed the family. We rarely had any deer meat, there just weren't that many in the Delta to shoot. We often had rabbit and squirrel to eat, sometimes raccoon and too often opossum. The rabbit and raccoon hides would be dried and sold for extra income.
My dad worked for the Gideon-Anderson Lumber Company earning $.50 an hour. Half his pay was in cash the other was in script issued by the company and was only good at the company grocery store, the company general store, the company pharmacy or the company gas station. Working six days a week the total cash pay that my father would receive was almost $25.00. Once a month the company would deduct $18.00 for rent because we also lived in a company house. In our home a gun and a good hunting dog made the difference if you had any meat to eat during the week. Once in awhile Grandma with kill a rooster for dinner. The hens were kept for the eggs they produced. Guns were also a source of income. A gun could be bought at the company general store and traded for something else you might want but didn't have cash money to purchase.
As a person who has always been around guns, owned guns and used them in my employment they are something that just didn't need to be explained. I remember the first gun that I bought. It was a 22 cal. rifle and it cost me $21.00 including tax. I worked all summer mowing lawns to buy it, I was 12 years old. When I was a teenager my dad gave me a deer rifle for a present. Years later my mother surprised me with a carnival gun. It was a 22 cal. pump rifle. Just like the ones you could shoot at the carnivals to win a prize, 10 shots - $.50, an hours pay for my dad. When my mother died in 1995 one of the things that she left me was a 32 cal. semiautomatic pistol. Like I said, guns have always been apart of my life.
Some of my fondest memories are hunting with my brother. We would each grab a gun and walk out of the house and down the road to go hunting. People would see us walking down the road and honk and wave as they passed. Sometimes a family member of neighbor would stop and pick us up and carry us to where we were going. Today, if my brother and I were to walk out the door carrying guns and started walking down the road I don't think we'd get very far before we would be surrounded by the law, he's 62 and I'm 60, and yet it is still perfectly legal to peacefully pass through the state with a firearm.
Today, in communities all around the country people are in the constant struggle of debate about guns, who should own them-who should not and question the very need or right to keep and bear arms. I say struggle because the dialogs has gone on in earnest since the 60's and has only gotten louder and more intense with no clear resolution in sight.
DOES A STATE OR CITY HAVE THE RIGHT TO PROHIBIT THE PEOPLE TO OWN GUNS? New York Cities Sullivan Act has tried to regulate gun ownership for more than 25 years. Washington D.C. has been arguing the district's case before the United States Supreme Court trying to keep its gun ownership ban in place. Both were put in place to curb the violent crimes and deaths associated with hand guns with little effect. Registration and background checks are now required by federal law largely as a result of the debates and yet criminals don't seem to bother with all that. So how do we put a dent in this growing violence? Those who argue that guns should be abolished have spent millions of dollars and lobbied hard for years. Gun owners and gun rights advocates (NRA) have protested and lobbied against the anti-gun groups arguing Constitution Rights and individual rights.
When I was in law enforcement a person arrested with a concealed weapon could receive two years in prison for that act. Now in Missouri a person can legally carry a concealed weapon if they have acquired the license after mandatory gun safety training and through background checks. I should note for the benefit of the gun owners that the criminals who do carry concealed weapons don't bother with this law either. There are some interesting facts, both pro and con that I have gathered through research that I could offer but I doubt it would convince anyone to change sides.
Not to make light of the subject, a news commentator once remarked that violent crime is Washington D.C. was only impacted if the Washington Redskins football team had a winning season. On days that the Redskins played and the event was broadcast on the television he said, "the criminals stayed home and watched the game on a stolen television." It was a statement that seemed ironic and yet the crime rate on those days seem to bear him out. One might think that rain, snow or freezing weather had more impact on violent crime but he attributed the reduction in violent crime to football. Who Knows?
I'm writing this blog not to recall the old days and happy memories in my life but to seek to understand why the issue of guns is so polarizing in America, an issue seen in the eyes of the rest of the world as a sort of a cowboy issue.
As a former police administrator I would say that I have probably seen every inhuman act that one human could do to another. I've seen guns used on both sides of the situation. In my experience not all violent crimes were committed with a gun, but to many were.
Leonard Laws and Jerome Mallot are just two of many that will ever remain in my consciousness. If you have a personal story or issue that you would like to express I would like to hear it.
I'm John Q. What do you think? Comments Showing most recent comments first [Show in chronological order instead] |
Hot topics Non-Denominationalism(18 ~ 1:50 PM, Jul 4)
RUDE PEOPLE
Congregation Healthcare
Rental Dumps and Slum Lords
Car For Sale "Cheap"
 |
![[Feed icon]](http://www.marshallnews.com/images/icons/feed-icon-14x14.png){kind=icon}
http://www.forbes.com/prnewswire/feeds/prnewswire/...
John Q.,
This is one link to the story, though not the first story I read on the issue. Unless I missed something, this article doesn't necessarily slant to one party or the other.
OK - I certainly appreciated your comments and insights into the nature of our urban areas. I am always appalled at so-called fiscal conservatives who refuse to spend money on childrens' health and education, but so willingly spend many times more on the long-term consequences of early neglect, all the while screaming 'personal responsibility!! - LOCK EM UP FOR LIFE" - and only the privatized prison operators and their investors make money. Build it and they will fill it..?
http://www.nationalpriorities.org/economic_securit...
Cheetah, this type of voter-caging is an ongoing problem in largely Republican states. Ohio had a horrific voter fraud case, as did Florida and Texas, largely against poor, minority and/or democratic voters. The other voter fraud case was the RNC contestation of deployed soldiers' votes.
http://www.blackboxvoting.org/
http://www.alternet.org/democracy/80589/
http://www.truthaboutfraud.org/case_studies_by_sta...
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10432334/wa...
Smokin' Cheetah, I don't know what political party these officials represent but historical experience has demonstrated that the majority of poor people favor Democratic candidates and largely vote that way. Do you know what party these official represent?
Excellent points Oklahoma.
I would point to the San Antonio River area in Texas, just a few hundred yards from the Alamo, as an example of what an investment of time and money can do for a hostile environment. Granted, it's been several years, but that area was once regarded as the most hostile place to be in San Antonio--high crime rates, run-down buildings, etc. It was touted as the place NOT to be when the sun when down. Today, it is a beautiful boardwalk of sorts lined with prominent hotels, restaurants of many cultures, and a fairly "easy going" atmosphere.
The cost of this war in Iraq is substantial, to say the least. But even the "chump change" that's been spent on the negative campaigning would go far in rehabilitating some of these areas.
Somewhat unrelated, but stay with me on this: The state of Missouri and several election officials are being sued over improper voter registration practices. Apparently the law requires that when POOR people sign up for government assistance, they must be offered the opportunity of voter registration. The charges are that this hasn't been happening. I capitalize *poor* to illustrate the point that there will be whatever exhorbitant legal fees paid to battle this--on behalf of poor people. Am I the only one that sees this as an oxymoron?
The comments in this blog compelled me to reflect on the topic. Bd42 brought up the interesting point that the reason the Constitution includes the right to bear arms hearkens back to the feudal, and post feudal days in the countries from which the white settlers of our country immigrated. BD42 went on to say that at that early point in time those societies established laws prohibiting serfs the right to bear weapons to stop poaching, and because of the fear of armed rebellion. Not withstanding the published reason our Founders defended, and established the right to bear arms (a well armed militia,etc.) those European restrictions were probably in the back of their minds. This brings me to thoughts concerning our urban ghettoes, the target of, and the areas subjected to the most restrictive gun controls in our nation.That is where our current equivalent of serfs abide. Is there not an analogy between poaching in Sherwood Forest and our urban have nots utilizing guns to take from the well off? Is there not an analogy between the rebellion feared in ancient times, and the rebellious rage that results in daily killings in our ghettoes? We have allowed those areas to erode into social, moral, and material despair, and decay for generations. We can place more restrictive gun laws on them until hell freezes over, and it won't change a thing in those chaotic environs. Until we rebuild the infrastructure of each of those enclaves of hopelessness, they will continue to decline. One's first reaction to that proposal is, but we can not afford to do that. The irony is that had we used the money we have so errantly spent to destroy, and then rebuild, only to destroy, and rebuild again in Iraq to restore our own cites over the last five years we would be well on the way to recovery, and much closer to not needing restrictive gun controls. I am not looking for Utopia,I am just hoping that once again, reason can rule over madness. These are trying times that anguish thinking compassionate people to their very souls. We can do better. What o you think?
I wonder how many people know that the reason the Constitution includes the right to bear arms goes back to the feudal system? At that time, serfs were prohibited to carry weapons, for reasons involving poaching and also because of the fear of rebellion. When the U.S. was formed, the founders wanted to avoid that situation.
What we are looking at now is the situation where some of the guns are used for murder and larceny. That is not a consitutional right. The courts are trying to balance individual rights to carry weapons against an individual's right to not be murdered by that gun.
NanaDot, The senior citizen of today grew up in the culture of the television serial westerns. Fess Parker, Clayton Moore, Randolph Scott, Gene Autry, Red Rider, Cowboys and Indians, us verses them and all the post war movies where guns played a significant role in our history. Entertainment and glorification of Good Guy verses the Bad Guy, White Hats verses Black Hats, the good always winning out. This doesn't happen in the real world but it has served as a tool to deliver a message. This may not have been the intent but for million of children may have formed a basis in their beliefs.
I think that many of adults stand on the issues of the present and although unstated, may not be consciously aware that there position is fundamentally still Good Guy verses the Bad Guy, White Hats verses Black Hats.
John - the rest of the world sees it as a 'cowboy issue' because they have killed each other off often enough, at all levels of 'skill', that our adolescent obsessions are like playing cowboy to them... The Chinese have been Chinese for over 5000 years, produced Lao Tzu, developed gun powder over 1000 years ago - and we have only been an organized country for 232 years... we are still in a learning curve.
In addition, we currently have a culture of violence that is promoted at the highest levels of government, in many forms of 'entertainment', and is largely tolerated and even promoted in civil society... nice guys finish last, he who dies with the most toys wins, bomb'em back to the stone age, nuke the b""""", only winners!, etc. so why are we surprised?
We glorify killing everyone who gets in our way while paying lip service to 'rule of law', unless you can afford better... so why are we surprised? Guns are just the most obvious method, cause they are noisy. It seems we'd rather tolerate wholesale killing so we can throw em all in prison (it IS a growth industry - build it and fill it). If they can't afford a decent lawyer we will spend $40,000 a year to keep them there instead of making sure they got a decent public education, job training and a living wage job - HEY! I WANT ONE OF THOSE TOO! GIVE ME THE $40K A YEAR!
But I digress...
the whole purpose of the right to bear arms is to protect against the govt.......we let the govt hand pick who has them! its a travesty!
I think I need to clarify one statement. I said is response to NanaDot's question. I mis spoke when I used the work "unfortunately." I should have said necessarily.
NanaDot, did you get my response to your response to the blog on Women?
NanaDot, Absolutely! What's brought the gun into the news is the issue that needs to be addressed. Unfortunately, honest and open conversation has to exist before any understanding can even be achieved.
John Q,
You stated that: Gun enthusiasts accept the gun as a part of their history and heritage. Until gun enthusiasts are willing to address the problem instead of defend their position we'll never come to an agreement on the problem.
Isn't that true about most of the 'hot button' topics? The 'true believers' are always so busy defending the "rightness" of their position that they never see problems or contradictions as anything but an "attack"?
Thank you, John Q. That was the program. I understand and agree with your point about one's passion for the issue. Perhaps this is an example of the pitfalls of fanaticism... regardless of the issue.
I look forward to more on this.
Smokin' Cheetah, I think it's both. Polarization results when opposing forces meet and neither is able or willing to change. You've seen the demonstrations with two magnets placed side by side. When the polarity is aligned they stick together. When their polarization is reversed they repulse each other. In the gun debate people take a stand on the issue and have no problem with others of like beliefs. It's when they are associated with people with different believes, different polarity they naturally repulse each other.
Outside open dialog and cooperation every thing else is polarizing. In my personal case I came into a world, lived, grew and learned from my parents, grandparents and others in the community. This learning process included the beliefs and bias of that community.
Guns are just one of numerous issues that people agree to disagree on. Many times their passion on the issue interferes with and equal, open and honest discussion. You've seen it many times on the Speak Out blog on the site. Some people want to openly engage in conversation while others just want to fan the flames and upset the process.
I've seen many of the "Tales of the Gun" series on the History Channel. I vaguely recall the program you are talking about. The buyers of military ordinance felt that the single shot rifle was best for the Army in WWI. The military decided against using the Thompson Submachine Gun as a Government Issue weapon for mass distribution to the infantry soldier. This left huge numbers of weapons in warehouses priced to sell. I distinctly remember the advertisement showing a rancher standing on his front porch defending the homestead against attack.
Organized Crime took advantage of the situation available. With the submachine gun they had easy conceal ability and massive fire power verses law enforcement with revolvers.
The introduction on the History program says it very well when it say, "to better understand the gun". The issues of the present will never be effectively addressed until we have a better understand of what brought the gun into the news. Gun enthusiasts accept the gun as a part of their history and heritage. Until gun enthusiasts are willing to address the problem instead of defend their position we'll never come to an agreement on the problem.
John Q.,
I don't know that this adds to your comments, but I think it is a good example of how this has become such a huge issue...
Several months ago I watched a very intresting documentary on firearms (forgive me, I don't recall the name of the program). It spent a lot of time on the "Tommy" gun--the machine gun of the early 1900's. I didn't realize that the inventor had the noble intentions of revolutionizing and empowering the United States Armed forces with his new gun. For a lot of reasons, the idea didn't take with the military and warehouse upon warehouse full of these guns were basically abandoned. Eventually, one already large and growing group of people fell in love with the gun--the Mafia. Toward the end of his life, the inventor of the Tommy gun expressed great sorrow that the invention he had hoped would save American life ended up widely successful in taking American life.
Having a little trouble organizing my thoughts today, but I guess I'm asking is it really the guns that have polarized the nation, or is the purpose for which they are used making the headlines on an hourly basis?